CT or Mongoose...should I convert?

[sabredog]

Once again I am about launch a new campaign IMTU and have a bit of a quandary. I've run CT since the game's inception for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it works well as a framework to hang a homegrown campaign on and is easily modified, even on the fly. Plus, it was more generic and never seemed to be (except in some of the advanced chargen and psionics, but then again, those were easily rectified) tied closely to the OTU.

Now here I'm wondering if it is time to switch to Mongoose. My worry is that most newer players ("recent" may be a better word) will have the Mongoose rules as their primary experience with the game and forcing them to buy the CT rules in order to play my game is a non-starter for both my campaign's lifespan and the players' wallets. I might be lucky and find I have a group who have played CT but I doubt they will be the majority.

Looking at some of the rules for vehicles and ships - primarily the HG scale ships - some conversion would be a pain, but probably worth it in the end. Some of the rules seem needlessly complicated but I could easily houserule them into better. I just wonder this:

Is is easier to just convert Mongoose to CT, or the other way around? Has anyone done that in their games? How well did conversion in either direction work out for your game?

 

[mike wightman]

Steal the best bits from both.

Characters are generally about the same skill level, the real difference is task resolution and combat.

 

[sabredog]

So far that's been my take. I haven't delved really deeply into MgT yet, but it really seems like if I just use my usual 8/10/12 rolls for 99% of the skill tasks and usual attribute rolls for anything else the thing will play just like CT.

Except for the ships. That system looks pretty messy, but doable. If I use the HG level ship combat I'll need a few more handfuls of dice to cover the damage rolls for spinals (same with the heavier personal weapons in Mercenary). All those massive piles of dice feel very Tunnels & Trolls to me.

And what's with the pages and pages of weapons in Mercenary but you have to throw down 20 bucks more for the descriptions in the Central Supply Catalog to know what they do? Since the armor vs. damage and range vs weapon rules are so generic and oversimplified do we really need so many different weapons within each class - or are the full descriptions in the CSC so radically different that I'm missing the subtleties? Gauss Flamer? I assume that it throws incendiary rounds like the portable launchers use these days? Thud Gun?

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't like mixing game rules from different games or editions. And, I typically like to play games closely to how the rules are written. Oh, I'll make a house rule here and there, but, usually, I don't change much.

I don't even like converting between different versions of Traveller. If I play CT, then I only use CT supplements. If I play MT,then I only use MT supplements.

Sure, I might reference something like MT's SOM for a CT game, but when I do this, it is very, very rare.

Therefore, it's easy to see my stance.

Stick with CT.

 

[GypsyComet]

So far that's been my take. I haven't delved really deeply into MgT yet, but it really seems like if I just use my usual 8/10/12 rolls for 99% of the skill tasks and usual attribute rolls for anything else the thing will play just like CT.

It is worth taking note that Mongoose acknowledges the use of 6+ and 4+ as well. Given that CT and MGT share the use of negative DMs for low characteristics (something the third member of the family, MT, doesn't do), having the simpler task rolls handy so Mr. "Broad side of a barn" can still occasionally hit something can be useful.

Except for the ships. That system looks pretty messy, but doable. If I use the HG level ship combat I'll need a few more handfuls of dice to cover the damage rolls for spinals (same with the heavier personal weapons in Mercenary). All those massive piles of dice feel very Tunnels & Trolls to me.

The big weapons feature prominently in your games?

And what's with the pages and pages of weapons in Mercenary but you have to throw down 20 bucks more for the descriptions in the Central Supply Catalog to know what they do? Since the armor vs. damage and range vs weapon rules are so generic and oversimplified do we really need so many different weapons within each class - or are the full descriptions in the CSC so radically different that I'm missing the subtleties? Gauss Flamer? I assume that it throws incendiary rounds like the portable launchers use these days? Thud Gun?

A safe assumption with those black cover books from Mongoose is that if you haven't heard of the weapon, it isn't a part of the Imperium setting. MGT books with black covers are, with one curious exception (Library Data), not setting specific to the Imperium.

 

[Timerover51]

You could try Starter Traveller from DriveThruRPG for $19.99. For a while you could download it for free.

 

[sabredog]

Therefore, it's easy to see my stance.

Stick with CT.

That's pretty much how I feel, too, but in the interest of at least getting some players I'll compromise. Maybe I can bring them in with their shiny new Mongoose books and corrupt them into CT. The MgT characters can be directly plugged into CT as far as I'm concerned - only the different takes on careers and attribute modifiers are different. And they can replace the attribute mods for the combat rules without any real problems. I don't like the range modifiers but I can live with them - but I think what I'll do is just hold up my Big List Of Mayhem from CT (with my own weapon added) and say this is what we use for combat.

As for ships and computers - again, I'll just....
...oh hell, who am I kidding, I'll just run CT and let anyone with a MgT character who wants to play use that character.

 

[sabredog]

You could try Starter Traveller from DriveThruRPG for $19.99. For a while you could download it for free.

Yeah, but really the newer players are the ones that I'm worried about having rules for. I don't want to tell them they have to go out and buy new rules, and I can't give them copies of mine since mine are all on DVD. I have some of my old original '77 LBB's and Traveller Book, but they are falling to pieces and just kept for the memories.

Back in the bad old days I could let someone borrow my books to read over the weekend so he could learn the game, and the LBB's were simple enough that new players would have a grasp of play within 20 minutes or so. We were all so familiar with much more complicated rules from games like SPI's Air War so burning through 3 little books was nothing - they were just the framework...the rest was intuitive.

Nowadays, though, it seems like players either want streamlined rules on one sheet of paper or monstrous D20 tomes that have rulings over every small detail with no room for creativity.

So recruiting entirely new players for my game is unknown territory for me these days. Its been way too long since I played with strangers and a new generation of players at that.

 

[sabredog]

It is worth taking note that Mongoose acknowledges the use of 6+ and 4+ as well. Given that CT and MGT share the use of negative DMs for low characteristics (something the third member of the family, MT, doesn't do), having the simpler task rolls handy so Mr. "Broad side of a barn" can still occasionally hit something can be useful.

I've always allowed a natural '12' to be a success on a roll so that and my 6+ rule works for most of the unskilled characters. And snakeyes is always failure.

As for the DM calculations, I run those out of my head anyway and just give the players a number to roll. If they want to look it all up that's fine, but even before the old Judge's Guild screen charts I had my own tables with all the DM's calculated into the weapon throws. For other skills it pretty much depends on the situation at hand so, CT or MgT...it's potaytoe - potahtoe. Some players like crunching all the numbers, though, so MgT has them covered. And I do really like the attribute DM's. I use a lot of attribute rolls for the situations skills don't cover so those DM's come in handy if I just flip the + to - and back depending on the need. Like a 3D6= Dexterity or less to jump out of a speeding air/raft or something.

The big weapons feature prominently in your games?

Sometimes they do - not necessarily because some battleship is pounding away at the player's Type S with all batteries blazing, but rather as background material for the most part. Sometimes the players have been involved in minor fleet ops as Naval characters or such when I've run that sort of game, but mainly I'm pretty obsessive about detail and have a lot of background material and stage dressing in my campaign. I like to have a coherent system to run it all with that works from the top down and vice versa since one never knows when it will be needed and I like 'color' to have substance IMTU.

Plus, once in a while players might get their hands on a heavy RP-plasma gun so they have a chance of success in some adventure so its good to have rules for those.

The MgT system works well for that but the weapon damage rolls seem too generic to me. Much like the personal weapon rules do - maybe its just a case of too much riches so they start looking the same. The power requirement rules are not as crunchy as I'd like, either.

CT HG? Yeah, maybe some of the same, but the ships from there are treated the same way IMTU: big fish for the players to swim in the shadow of and rarely are they used, and the power requirements make more sense.

 

[sabredog]

Don't think I'm slamming MgT here. I'm probably just being too nit-picky and, as with all things, once I start running the rules I'll see the sense of them. I like a lot of what MgT has to offer, it is sort of a breath of fresh air useful to get one excited about running the game again.

 

[Ulsyus]

Take the plunge, play T5. There's the known issues with it being v1.0, but it integrates everything very neatly, the task system in elegant, it meshes with personal interaction and combat cleanly, and ship design is very easily done with vessels designed using the spreadsheet here.

Evolve to T5.

(Should that be TM-ed?)

 

[Kilgs]

I would recommend rolling with Mongoose. It has support albeit a chunk of it is dross and it is easily available. The rules seem a bit easier to grok than CT and don't have arbitrary tests in the middle of the mechanics.

The 2d6 system has issues that neither system can alleviate but I would move with the system that has the most mechanical material with it. That would be Mongoose. You can convert anything from CT to Mongoose pretty easily but the reverse is not the same.

But mainly it IS the new Traveller system. And, not being a diehard of the old version, I don't see any reason to stick with CT.

No experience with MT.

 

[GypsyComet]

...not being a diehard of the old version, I don't see any reason to stick with CT.

No experience with MT.

MT doesn't really bring anything to the table that there aren't better alternatives for.

In My Opinion, there are a few things from CT that I would retain, or at least use as references, when mostly using MGT, and vice versa.

CT as primary:
-Use MGT Homeworld, Basic Training, and Connection rules.
-Consider using the Event mechanic as well.
-Consider using Ship Shares instead of possession in ten-year blocks for muster out ships.
-MGT's Patron Construction Tables.
-Elements of the commerce rules, such as the time to find a broker on a new world, and the use of multiple brokers.

MGT as primary:
-You'll want the complete ironmongery descriptions for the PGMPs from CT Mercenary.
-Use CT Mercenary for Merc Tickets.
-CT Scouts describes the organization of the IISS (maybe get some more detail from GURPS, too)
-Book 2 Ship Combat is worth being familiar with.
-Maybe use CT's personal damage allocation, and the END limit on melee combat.

 

[aramis]

MT doesn't really bring anything to the table that there aren't better alternatives for.

I disagree. Vehemently.

MT allows using units of various sizes with the combat system in wargame mode, making it the only edition where the tactical play can include small units, large units, ships, and individuals all on one consistent scaling.

The mishap rules, part of the task system, are quite nice for regularizing things.

It's the only edition besides T5 that has extensive post-TL-15 technology. Mongoose has some (esp. in the Psionics book), but has a different approach to that regime, as well.

It maintains the closest feel to CT while still allowing far more choices in Character generation, specifically by use of more cascades.

It maintains character compatibility with CT - even MGT doesn't do that, in that MGT doesn't have the same nor even all that terribly similar a skill list.

 

[Supplement Four]

That's pretty much how I feel, too, but in the interest of at least getting some players I'll compromise. Maybe I can bring them in with their shiny new Mongoose books and corrupt them into CT.

I'm not sure how a shiny new book would interest them anymore than a damn good game session. Barring that, I'd just hype it, saying something like, "Man, this game is AWESOME!". Blah, blah blah (details you like about CT). "Give it a try!"

And, then, when they do, and the first experience is freakin' great, then..you've got 'em.

The MgT characters can be directly plugged into CT as far as I'm concerned - only the different takes on careers and attribute modifiers are different.

I think you get waaayyy too many skills with MgT to be used in CT.

And they can replace the attribute mods for the combat rules without any real problems. I don't like the range modifiers but I can live with them - but I think what I'll do is just hold up my Big List Of Mayhem from CT (with my own weapon added) and say this is what we use for combat.

I don't refer to the charts when playing CT.

First off, I have the players record their base modifier right next to the weapon on their character sheet. This will be the DEX or STR modifier combined with the character's skill.

Then, as part of the weapon stats, I list it's modifiers for range and armor.

That makes it easy.

For example, a character with a shotgun might have a base +3 to hit with it due to skill and DEX.

Fights in CT usually happen at the same range for the entire combat, so it's not hard to add in that modifier. Just look at the weapon on the equipment sheet.

Same goes for the armor. If you can see your enemy, you can see his armor. Look at the weapon sheet and count the modifier.*

Boom. Done.





*At times, I'll take care of the Armor modifier. That way, the player just adds his base (Skill plus DEX/STR mod) plus range.

And, instead of using a straight 8+ to hit, I'll adjust the to hit number based on the weapon.

But, really, it's just as easy to have the player do it by looking at his weapon stats.

 

[Ulsyus]

What Aramis said about MT, it's my second favourite iteration after T5.

Plus, I'll add, I've been able to bring elements to T5 from CT and MT with minimal if any work, so seems to me to be the easiest version to use as a meta-system. Plus the starship system is probably the closest to CT out of the later versions.

From a different perspective, a lot of the different additional bits that were added to the versions have been rationalised in the T5 ruleset. All of the making rules for instance, as well as cloning and synthetics, the best rundown on how ship systems work, a much better series of descriptions on technology than before. I know it's produced some strong reactions from people, but once anyone gets past that it's pretty damn good!

 

[Putraack]

I think your first step is to find out what your players want. If you let them know, up front, that you're going to be mishmashing systems, they might be OK with that. Let them have their MgT characters, but run with CT rules that you're used to.

My PoV: I've never run CT, only played it a few times, and have run MgT ~ a dozen times since it's come out. I see them as pretty compatible, but that may just be me.

 

[GypsyComet]

I think you get waaayyy too many skills with MgT to be used in CT.

Only compared to a Book 1 and Supp 4 universe. The only problem would come with a career's tendency to stack up the same skill, and that would be a problem in either edition. Spreading around rank-0 and 1 skills does not hurt CT, especially given CT's breadth of skills. The longer the skill list gets, the more specialized it gets, and the more skill assignments a character needs access to to be relevant. Having a barely useful bonus in three skills and a non-proficiency penalty in the other 60 is not a way to sell the game to players.

Have a look: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php...-compared-to-Mongoose&p=17358303#post17358303

MT allows using units of various sizes with the combat system in wargame mode, making it the only edition where the tactical play can include small units, large units, ships, and individuals all on one consistent scaling.

The promise of this is implied, certainly. I'm not convinced that the game ever delivered on it though.

The mishap rules, part of the task system, are quite nice for regularizing things.

It's the only edition besides T5 that has extensive post-TL-15 technology. Mongoose has some (esp. in the Psionics book), but has a different approach to that regime, as well.

Granted.

It maintains the closest feel to CT while still allowing far more choices in Character generation, specifically by use of more cascades.

That is pretty subtle compared to the breadth of CT, and some of us found more cascades, and specifically the cross-linked cascades of MT, more annoying instead of less.

It maintains character compatibility with CT - even MGT doesn't do that, in that MGT doesn't have the same nor even all that terribly similar a skill list.

Because MT went the route of highly specific skills, while MGT backed off to the Book 1 level of generalization and re-specified to a lower level and with different goals. CT isn't internally consistent as it sits, with all of the advanced careers adding not just new skills but new arrangements of skills. With that in mind, MT and MGT are both very compatible with it.

 

[aramis]

MT delivered on its wargaming promises quite nicely - I've run squad, platoon, and battalion level "counters" in combat actions. As smooth as MT personal combat gets. It really helps that I groked the MT interrupt system right off, but using an initiative score instead works almost as well.

As for the detail level of skills - MT reduced the number of skills from CT Advanced gen. Mostly by inclusions.

Functionally, MT weapon skills are:

Archaic Weapons	Melee	Gun Combat	Big stuff
Blowgun Bola Boomerang Bow Crossbow Early Firearms Sling	Axe Brawling Cudgel Foil Large Blade Polearm Small Blade	Combat Rifleman Energy Weapons Handgun Laser Weapons Neural Weapons Rifleman Submachinegun	Heavy Weapons High-energy Weapons Mass Drivers Meson Guns Mortars and Howitzers Screens (Gunnery) Spinal Weapons (Gunnery) Turret Weapons (Gunnery)

The underlined skills are collections of multiple skills from CT core.
Note that Gunnery is a reduction from 6 categories to 3.

Almost all skills in MT are directly from CT. (The additional sciences, for example, are a reduction from the list in a JTAS article for scientist advanced gen.)

 

[sabredog]

MT worked great - I didn't convert when it came out because it was during a lull in my gaming career Traveller-wise, and was heavily involved running a massive Call of Cthulhu campaign. And I'm lazy. But I did like the way combat was handled - nice integration AHL/Striker combat and smooth integration up and down the line from pistols up to shipboard lasers.

I dunno, I guess I'm still lazy even though I have all the MT rules now. I'll stick with CT for now, and if the trend is to convert to MgT or T5 I'll switch then. I like to support the game, and I think always sticking to the older rules isn't the best way to do that unless those older sets are easily available to new players. Yes, you can point them to FFE, but people being what they are if it isn't right in front of them on the shelf they are less likely to get it instead of what they can pick up and look through. In my younger days I would have been downright tyrannical about it and insisted everyone use the rules I want to, but I've mellowed somewhat on that. As long as I don't have to put in days worth of work doing the math i can probably switch to something preferred by the majority without too much trouble.

I'd have to order T5, though, and its way too pricey right now for me. I have the original disc for it from a year ago or so, and its pretty horrible, but I never got around to getting the final iteration.